Note: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has been studying sea level change for 35 years. He is the former head of Stockholm University's department of Paleodeophysics and Geodynamics. Dr. Mörner is and an expert reviewer for the IPCC, leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, and past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes.

A noted expert in sea level change has accused UN's IPCC panel of falsifying and destroying data (PDF) to support the panel's official conclusion of a rising sea level trend. The accusations include surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.

The expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, also raps the IPCC for their selection of 22 authors of their most recent report on sea level rise (SLR), none of which were sea level specialists. According to Mörner, the authors were chosen to "arrive at a predetermined conclusion" of global warming-induced disaster.

Sea level changes can be detected by a number of methods. Rotational timing is a very precise method, and is based on the fact that a change in the earth's radius will cause minute differences in it's rate of rotation. A rise in sea level increases the radius slightly, and can therefore be detected by precisely timing when the sun rises and sets. This method can detect changes in sea level as small as one millimeter. Data collected in this manner has shown the ocean to have risen and fallen slightly several times since the early 1900s, without any definitive trend.

Satellite altimetry is another method. Mörner says that, in 2003, The IPCC's altimetry dataset, which had previously displayed no clear trend, suddenly changed, with past readings modified to show a strong uplift. Though corrections to datasets are supposed to be clearly announced and identified, this was done secretly, and not labeled. When Mörner inquired about the discrepancy, he was told the readings had been adjusted by a "correction factor".

Where did this factor come from? The least precise method of measuring sea level is tide gauge records. These are problematic as the land under the gauge may itself be rising or falling. Hong Kong maintains six tide gauges, five of which show no trend. The sixth, located on land where compaction is causing the ground to sink, was chosen by the IPCC as the correction factor for global altimetry data.

Tide gauges kept in the sensitive areas of Pacific and Indian Ocean islands show a different story. In Vanuatu, Tegua, and the Tuvalu Islands, gauge records show no trend at all. In the Maldives, tide gauges kept from the 1950s show a small drop in the 1970s, and no change since.

More shocking is Mörner's claim of the destruction of evidence. A famous low-lying tree in the Maldives has long been a marker for sea-level change, and noted in several research papers. But when an Australian team visited the island on a data-gathering trip, they saw the tree and pulled it down, according to local eyewitnesses. Mörner's team later replanted the tree in the same spot.

Climatologist and IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr. Madhav Khandekar, contacted by DailyTech in regards to this story, also believes SLR is being exaggerated by the IPCC. Khandekar says SLR over the next 100 years will be "insignificant" and pointed to recent research demonstrating SLR had actually declined in the latter half of the 20th century.

Dr. Mörner also had harsh words for the Maldives government. When the Maldives Sea Level Project concluded there was no threat to from rising sea levels, a documentary was made to reassure residents. The government, however, banned airing of the film. According to Mörner, the rationale for the ban was financial. The Maldives stands to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in climate change aid from Western governments. "Because they thought that they would lose money." He said, "They accuse the West for putting out carbon dioxide, so they wanted the flooding scenario to go on."

Mörner says it's becoming increasingly hard to perform objective climate research. In the European Community, a prerequisite for research grants is that the focus must be on global warming. Papers which don't support global warming aren't funded. "That's what dictatorships did, autocracies." He added, "They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I seem to remember from my childhood an experiment from science class where you take a glass, put ice cubes in it, then fill it with water up to the rim. The teacher then asks you to guess if the water will overflow or not, and lo and behold, the ice melts and the water level stays the same.

I realize the Earth is more complex than a glass of ice water, but would the results be somewhat similar?

Any ice that is not on land will not have an effect on sea level rise. Ice that is floating on water has already displaced its mass; so it doesn't matter if it is liquid or solid (i.e. Arctic ice).

Ice on land, like in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to raise sea levels.

I believe sea levels are rising. There have been documentaries on the National Geographic channel and in their magazine, on islands in the South Pacific where houses that were perfectly fine 30 years ago, are now submerged in over a foot of water and some of these islands no longer have beaches.

I don't really think that erosion is the culprit here, but you can't totally downplay it's role.

Erosion doesn't "dunk" landmasses into the ocean. It scours away at it's foundation. 20 years of this could definitely do some damage."80 to 90 percent of sandy beaches are currently eroding at rates of only a few inches to over 50 feet per year along the outer coastline of Louisiana"http://drbeach.org/drbeach/physical_therapy.htm

Anyway, I don't really agree with you. But, I don't think that the example given was entirely valid. So there you have it.

The UN is a joke. Global warming will be used to tax the entire world and further their agenda. There are 1000's of scientists who disagree that global warming is occurring and/or detrimental to the planet. Wake UP People!

Science is not a popularity contest. Your choice to ignore the scientific method is YOUR choice. But to suggest that in "a world of science", scientific consensus is "the best you can expect" is sad and pathetic, not compelling.

Oh well if National Geographic channel says so it must be so. I especially like their "documentaries" on ghosts and aliens which air during sweep weeks. But seriously the sea could be rising (which multiple studies show is simply not true, or the land could be eroding or sinking.

You're welcome to believe what you see on TV. I'm not saying you're wrong.... but these scientists that Asher is talking... they ARE saying you're wrong.

When I have to choose between you or them, sorry but I choose them.

It's very easy for TV to show "evidence" and label it as fact without showing any proof. Equations like "This house was here relative to the water, now it's here" are useless on their own. I also love the term "documentary" because it seems to inherently mean that it's just a lot of facts. But it hasn't meant that in a long, long time. A documentary now is just a movie that has a non-fiction topic that the author wants you to believe.

It's also very easy for a scientist to disagree in an INTERVIEW (not a peer-reviewed scientific document) and have them posted on the internet for the masses. Interesting how everyone sort of believes what they want to hear - whether it be on Nat Geo or on DailyTech.

I'm sure I'll get rated down for being skeptical of one skeptic; especially when he posts this in an interview and has not subjected his claims to the peer review process - at least that I could find in the article.

His claims (at least in the interview) sound an awful lot like a claim of a "conspiracy" of global warming. Even the interviewer is great at asking some leading questions.

All you need to do is Google this guy's name and see that he has a long history offering up "opinions" and giving interviews, speeches, etc. denying any sort of human influence on climate change. The very first search result even shows he has a flair dishonesty by misrepresenting himself.

So the data everyone else uses (which is often the same data) is wrong when it predicts SLR, but right when he predicts it to mean that nothing will happen in regard to SLR?

For the record, I don't think SLR is a proven thing that's going to threaten humanity, nor do I think Morner (or anyone else) has proven that there's nothing to be concerned about with regard to SLR.

Since we have a relatively limited (a few decades with regard to Earth's history is like a couple milliseconds in a human lifetime) in regard to SLR, so I don't think we can draw any safe conclusions about the future from such a limited data set.

quote: Since we have a relatively limited (a few decades with regard to Earth's history is like a couple milliseconds in a human lifetime) in regard to SLR, so I don't think we can draw any safe conclusions about the future from such a limited data set.

Satellite data and rotational timing data does clearly show rising ocean levels. Masher just left the consensus view and facts out of his article. The majority of climate scientists interpret the rotational timing data differently than Masher and, contrary to what Masher states above, tide gages aren't used to calibrate satellite data anymore. I provide the link to the manuscript that spells it out in a previous post. I can repost it if you want to read for yourself.

It took me a bit to dig it up but it was worth it. This research (done by a totally different scientist) shows sea level rise has decreased lately. Totally the opposite of what the IPCC is saying. Sounds like Masher is spot-on here.

If you Google for my name the 3rd or 4th link that shows up is some clown at Tom's Hardware that says I'm getting Hormone Replacement Therapy. I'm not, but that doesn't mean the people who Google my name think so.

It's pretty clear from the article that the hormone therapy bit is nonsensical. The article states outright this is based on "rumors out of nowhere."

From what I read, it seems that DailyTech refused to post a retraction when a poorly sourced news article about THG's editor was posted, and if that's the case, I can see how people would be upset. In either case, this doesn't support your point.

So what of those who disagree with Morner's views? Clearly, the lack of consensus doesn't prove Morner right anymore than his unfounded accusations of conspiracy prove IPCC wrong. While IPCC certainly has their own motivations for what they do, Morner certainly has his as well. Maybe he's a little miffed about being left off the IPCC panel since he's "unbeaten" in SLR research and feels everyone else is inferior.

Again, making claims of conspiracy doesn't add to the discussion: it poisons the climate (pun intended) of the debate because a conspiracy is very difficult to prove. It goes outside the science and plays on people's emotions.

I'm especially skeptical of a scientist who claims, in an interview, that he is "unbeaten" by any of his colleagues. That, to me, does not indicate a mind that is open to the possibility that he is wrong. Rather, that indicates to me he is likely only to look at evidence that supports his views and ignore or suppress other evidence.

And to Illustrate how important Peer-Reviewed Scientific Fact is (DrumRoll Please):

The World is FlatAll that can be learned has been learned (Pre-1900)Man cannot flyAlternating Current is a Perpetual Motion Scam and cannot be used for anything usefulThe moon is made of cheeseWomen cannot serve in government because during their mensus all their blood goes to their uterus and thus deprives their brain of the needed oxygen for thinking rationally.

Golly, need I go on? Where would we be without Peers?</Sarcasm>

Ever hear of Peer pressure in a positive way?

Remember it only takes one person to be right. It takes his peers to burn him at the stake for it.

Who is getting paid for the lie one way or another?

Some say the Oil companies are paying scientist (that's not peer reviewed, but they don't complain about that.)

The GW Scientists ARE getting paid by US tax dollars and other countries as well. Plus the UN is seeking to TAX all industrialized countries for more research. This is public knowledge.

Oh and then there are reparations charged against the US and other countries and given to the dictators... I mean the poor people in oppressed... I mean poor war-torn countries. Remember, each of these "unfortunate" countries has a vote in the UN... The US only has one (But we have Veto power.)

So, which conspiracy do you believe is more likely? Which candidate are you going to vote for?

quote: Ice that is floating on water has already displaced its mass; so it doesn't matter if it is liquid or solid

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't water expand when frozen? Therefore water in a solid state, such as being frozen, should have a slightly higher displacement than liquid water.

Example, filling an ice tray to the rim and then freezing it. Upon returning to the ice tray the ice will be slightly above the rim.

Another example would be the last Ice Age where water covered a much higher percentage of the earth's surface yet today there is far more land than existed some 18000 years ago at the coast line.

So I hypothesize... If all the Ice at sea melts then the water level of the Ocean should decrease. The Ice from the land would not have the same mass in its liquid form. Add the liquid water from the land into a shrinking sea and there should be a canceling out for some portion of the water from land. I don't know the exact displacement of Ice in the water vs Ice on land so that is only a hypothesis but it would be interesting to know the exact numbers.

Yes, freshwater does expand when frozen and it expands when heating. If you look up the thermal properties of water, you will find it to be at it's most dense when it is a few degrees above its freezing point.

Here's a basic explanation of what happens to saltwater as it freezes:

This attribute of freshwater is what (in part) enables fish and other organisms to survive through the winter under a frozen lake. Oxygen-rich water at the top of the lake sinks as it cools in the open air and the less-oxygen rich water at the bottom of the lake is now warmer than the water at the surface, causing it to rise and become more oxygenated. If this did not occur, the water at the bottom of the lake would constantly be oxygen poor. And since the lake would be frozen, no oxygen could be exchanged at the surface which would mean the lake would support less (if any) organisms that require oxygen.

Saltwater freezes at a much lower point (fully saturated saltwater freezes at -21.1 C as opposed to freshwater at 0 C) than does freshwater - which is why we have icebergs and why icebergs can float: saltwater has a different specific gravity from freshwater.

The displacement isn't volume, it's mass. If you place an ice cube or two into a glass and fill it with water to the rim, the melting ice won't cause the water to overflow because it has already displaced the mass that it would take up if it were liquid. The sea levels SHOULD stay the same, but we're also dealing with a completely different scale when talking about ice caps and sea levels than a glass with a couple of ice cubes.

Whether the water is solid or liquid, there's still the same amount of water even though the ice takes up more space.

quote: If you place an ice cube or two into a glass and fill it with water to the rim, the melting ice won't cause the water to overflow because it has already displaced the mass that it would take up if it were liquid.

Obviously it won't overflow. It should however lower the water level as the ice cubes melt since water expands when frozen and contracts at room temp.

It is the same amount of water but at various states it does have a higher displacement.

Oh and displacement does not mean mass when it comes to liquid. Displacement in a liquid is how much of the liquid is pushed aside when a foreign object is placed into it. Therefore two objects that have a higher density than water but are both the same size will have equal displacement in water even though they may have a different mass from one another.

Example: A one square foot block of aluminum and a one square foot block of steel. Both displace the same amount of water but undoubtedly the aluminum block would have far less mass.

Bad analogy as you are talking about something that will sink, so yes, displacement will be the same. However, if you want it to float you have to configure it (like a ship hull) to displace more water for the heavier material.

Since ice expands at it freezes, i.e. same mass in a larger area, it is less dense that the water around it, and it floats.

Uhm, but the entire object does not sit above the water line. There is an immense portion of ice that is displacing the water below the iceberg. So as the less dense ice melts and becomes more dense in its liquid state it fills in the area that was previously being displaced by the higher volume less dense ice below it.

The analogy works just fine as only a small portion of an iceberg exists above the water line.

Unless you were to heat the water, the volume would not change. Heated water would have a larger volume than cold water due to thermal expansion. In a glass of water, it would be hard to notice without precise measurement tools. But in a large hot water heating system (for example), you have to account for the increase in volume by sizing a thermal expansion tank.

Yeah, and this article is being used to refute global warming. However, if the ice melted into water, and that water got warmer, the ice would shrink from ice then expand again as it heated, if you want to follow your hypothesis a little further.

By the time water reached the other end of the spectrum where it actually expanded again the earth would already be at a point with which it could no longer support life anyway. Don't recall the temp exactly but I think its around 150F when people are no longer capable of surviving due to sweat becoming an ineffective means of cooling the body. The water expansion happens somewhere around ~200F IIRC.

We would be long passed due before the expansion of water was a great concern.

A floating ice mass melting won't change the water level around it. So the arctic ice mass melting shouldn't affect water levels. If greenland and the antarctic melt (which aren't floating), we will see a dramatic change in ocean levels. Water expands slightly when warmed which may also affect ocean water levels if the planet warms.

quote: There are three estimates of sea level changes for Tuvalu. The first is a satellite record showing that the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993 when the hundred-million dollar international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began. Second comes from the modern instruments recording tide gauge data since 1978. There the record for Tuvalu shows ups and downs of many inches over periods of years. For example, the strong El Nino of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is a natural - as opposed to man-made -future of the Pacific Ocean, as areas of the Pacific periodically warm then cool every few years, causing significant sea level rises and falls every few years in step with the co-oscillations of the ocean and atmosphere. The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, remains flat .

And again, in a different story cited in your link:

quote: Expert Says too Early to Assess if Sea Level Rising. Pacific island Forum leaders meeting in the New Zealand city of Auckland next month will be told that it's too soon to say if sea level rise is actually an established fact and a potentially serious problem.

And yet a third story, which establishes Tuvalu's motivation for supporting the SLR hypothesis:

I don't know if Tuvalu is actually experiencing rising ocean levels or not. Ocean level rise can be local, so some spots will rise more than others. But this doesn't change the fact that ocean levels are rising around the planet:

From the above link regarding your argument about an altimeter correction based on tide gauge readings:

quote: While in the past we have used the tide gauge calibration values as direct corrections to the altimeter data, recent improvements in the sea state bias correction [Chambers et al., 2003] now make this unnecessary, as the curve is relatively flat . In summary, the altimetric results are considered to be extremely robust, and the estimate of sea level rise of 2.8 ± 0.4 mm/yr over the last decade is very reliable within these error bars.

quote: I don't know if Tuvalu is actually experiencing rising ocean levels or not

With this one in your post immediately prior?

quote: I guess the people of Tuvalu must be imagining the rising sea levels.

In any case, allow me to correct the presumption that I am in some manner "analyzing" the data or even expressing my own opinion. I'm merely reporting a story. Morner -- indisputably one of the world's top experts on sea level -- is the one expressing an opinion here. Is he correct? Form your own opinion. The purpose of good journalism is to report facts and let people judge for themselves.

I think the IPCC panel is made up largely of people who are "indisputably" experts on the topic of climate change in various specialties. Yet somehow, your articles always serve to undermine their "indisputable" expert credentials. I'd find your reporting to be more balanced if you published news here relating to articles that support, as well as refute, the ideas of climate change.

So no, I don't think Morner is any more or less "indisputable" than any other climate scientist in any of the specialties. This information he's presenting (the science part at least, not the conspiracy accusations) are valuable, but far from indisputable - regardless of the source's credentials.

> "I think the IPCC panel is made up largely of people who are "indisputably" experts on the topic of climate change in various specialties."

Not according to Morner. His claim is that, of the 22 authors chosen to write about sea-level change, none are seal-level specialists.

> "I'd find your reporting to be more balanced if you published news here relating to articles that support, as well as refute, the ideas of climate change."

Any bit of news that supports the idea of climate change is quickly trumpeted from coast to coast. You'd have to live under a rock to miss it. The purpose of my column is to educate readers by giving them information they would otherwise not have heard. As such, I feel its far more balanced than what you're likely to read in the CNN environmental section.

quote: I'm merely reporting a story. Morner -- indisputably one of the world's top experts on sea level -- is the one expressing an opinion here.

Wrong. You are not merely reporting what Morner says in an interview--notice you didn't write any of his quotes from the interview verbatim. Rather, you declared:

quote:Data collected in this manner has shown the ocean to have risen and fallen slightly several times since the early 1900s, without any definitive trend.

That data can be interpreted many different ways, yet you explain it as if it were fact. That is not not established fact...most scientists interpret this data differently in the scientific community.

quote: Is he correct? Form your own opinion. The purpose of good journalism is to report facts and let people judge for themselves.

Ok, so when are you going to start presenting the facts? Like the fact that the mantle is liquid and hence can affect rotation of the planet? Or the fact that tidal gages aren't used to correct satellite data anymore? Did you forget to include that fact or are you just intellectually lazy? If you presented all the facts as best they are known, nobody here would believe that the ocean levels are changing. This is precisely why you don't present the facts...because they don't fit your agenda.

Which is why I chose to not "interpret" the data. The raw data itself indicates exactly what was said-- that sea level has both risen and fallen. That is fact...and it doesn't preclude the possibility that the data is in error or need of adjustment.

Your previous link identified one specific team which no longer used a tidal gauge correction. That doesn't disprove Morner's statement, that the IPCC used such a correction to influence their data set.

I realize you want every story on global warming to fit a certain agenda. However, the standards of journalism are clear. Morner made an assertion. The IPCC was contacted in regards to this story to give them an opportunity to counter that assertion. They failed to do so. I then contacted two other scientists who, though neither had a view as strong as Morner's, both agreed that the IPCC was inflating the issue. The facts were reported just as they were, without any spin.

That's journalism. If you want advocacy, find another column. CNN's environmental section might be a good start.

Parroting controversial scientific statements is what you call journalism? I guess you're trying to be clever and add to the science by showing us that you can find isolated opinions that happen to match yours.

That link was a review article, and referenced many different methods from many different scientific groups.

I don't want a particular agenda, I just want accuracy. You parroted this researcher's words as if they are accepted fact. You didn't even bother to quote his exact words. Show me the data--it's nothing personal--believe me, I'd write the same things if someone else wrote this article. I'm just ashamed for you because you (supposedly) got through postsecondary school in the sciences and should know better.

You're notorious Rove, and you follow the same modus operandi in every thread. First you make a bunch of personal attacks on Asher, then you trot out a link and pretend it counters something. Finally you start raving about conspiracy theories and agendas. Its getting pretty old.

Yes, your link shows some scientists think sea level is rising. So? That's pretty clear from reading the article already. The article even QUOTES a scientist who believes in sea level rise. Did you miss that part? Or were you too eager to post personal insults to read that far in?

Your real beef isn't the facts in the article, its that they weren't spun in a way that would force us all to believe the UN version of events. Sorry but I'll make up my own mind.

Interesting choice of reference Rovemelt. The last few sentences of the abstract are:

quote: Another important result of satellite altimetry concerns the nonuniform geographical distribution of sea level change, with some regions exhibiting trends about 10 times the global mean. Thermal expansion appears responsible for the observed regional variability. For the past 50 years, sea level trends caused by change in ocean heat storage also show high regional variability. The latter observation has led to questions about whether the rate of 20th century sea level rise, based on poorly distributed historical tide gauges, is really representative of the true global mean. Such a possibility has been the object of an active debate, and the discussion is far from being closed.

Although a different technique, the statement is in line with Mashers' reporting "Data ... has shown the ocean to have risen and fallen slightly several times since the early 1900s, without any definitive trend." and "Khandekar ... pointed to recent research demonstrating SLR had actually declined in the latter half of the 20th century."

quote: I then contacted two other scientists who, though neither had a view as strong as Morner's, both agreed that the IPCC was inflating the issue.

Out of interest, who were they?

No, I'm not asking for names; I'm just wondering their individual positions on climate change could be generally categorised as pro, anti, or neutral. I'm not suggesting that you did, but for arguments sake if you only talked to two climate change sceptics then that couldn't be regarded as objective journalisim.

No, I'm not asking for names (as you mentioned Dr. Madhav Khandekar); I'm just wondering their individual positions on climate change could be generally categorised as pro, anti, or neutral. I'm not suggesting that you did, but for arguments sake if you only talked to two climate change sceptics then that couldn't be regarded as objective journalisim.

The first was Khandekar, the second was another IPCC reviewer who asked that he not be cited by name. I did attempt to contact a third, who is decidedly "pro" global warming, but received no response before the article went to print.

Am I the only one who finds astonishing the number of ill-informed posts in this thread showing that people don't understand at all the mechanisms causing melting ice to rise the sea level ? Quick fact list:

1. The fact that ice density is lower than water density is irrelevant with respect to sea level rises (why ? -> see the other 100 explanations already given in this thread: floating ice displaces a volume of water equal to its weight, the experiment of ice melting in a glass, the top 1/10th of an iceberg above water level is where the extra ice volume is, etc).

2. Sea levels rise because ice over land ends up melting in the oceans.

3. Another factor causing the sea levels to rise is the expansion of sea water as the oceans warm.

Since when does falsification of data for sea level rise mean that global warming is a political fabrication? SLR is only ONE of the possible side effects of global warming. Not to mention the fact that even the most "green" politicians have fought the theory until recently, so I don't see how they made it up. I love how everyone screams about how much they know about the subject but have OBVIOUSLY not done any real research about it, but are rather jumping to conclusions just like the global warming bandwagoners they are complaining about.

Of course politicians are jumping on the band wagon -- they want to get re-elected! Saying, particularly outside of America, that they aren't ready to buy in to global warming would be like an atheist running for Govenor of Kansas. Political suicide, regardless of party.

The idea it's a political fabrication is also not born necessarily of believing or disbelieving various biased groups data, but by observing the actions of politicians and political groups involved in global warming. Former European communists have joined the green movement -- that's the first red flag. In America, it was initially an almost exclusively an issue of the liberal fringes of the Democrat party. The origins, therefore, are concerning. Moving beyond origins, the schemes with which to combat this problem also conveniently look like ideas long championed by those political factions -- massive wealth redistribution, annihilation of high consumers through the power of the state, and ultimately global wealth redistribution rather than just on a national level. Karl Marx, and many communists since, have known that absolute crisis is required for communism (and by extension, socialism) to flourish. By the fact that government control of the economy would be extending, even aside from the issue that that control would be damaging, means that economic freedom would be on the wain -- a socialists dream. Almost on cue, the UN starts asking the US to cough up $40B to the third world. That's just the start.

All the pieces come together to raise huge red flags, sound the battle horns, and start a call to arms among many people; a "crisis", or "planetary emergency" coming from the communist/socialist fringe of the political left, which stands to gain hugely, that requires planetary assaults on economic output and a huge extension of the power of government. You've got to understand, too, that in America some parts of the political right in particular have a powerful libertarian streak that runs all the way back to the founding fathers of the nation. It's a perfect storm; when you see Tories in England for example jumping on the bandwagon, they're simply trying to survive and figure it's better to join the enemy rather than stand and fight. Note the internal disagreements they've had.

It also further escalates the problem when the political lefts fields so many people to oppose expansion of nuclear power, one simple solution to energy security as well as global warming.

Perhaps it's all fabrication, perhaps not. Even if it were all true, this sort of battle would continue because it is at its very foundations a proxy war between communism/socialism and neo-classical liberalism / conservatism. (without googling, I think that's what a George Washington would be).

quote: So basically, no one can think for themselves. That, and they are simply naive.

The masses are ignorant; Steve Jobs has his ignorant masses, Al Gore has his. Some groups of people can be lead around.. you can see propaganda as far back as you can probably go in recorded history. I'm at least familiar with it as far as ancient Greece and the Romans.

quote: And don't get me started on nuclear power being a solution. Its not even close.

Er.. Okay. Lost all credibility with me now. Nice job.

quote: I am not saying that global warming is or is not happening.

I tiptoed around that aspect of the issue, and focused solely on the political motivations that drive the issue which bear no resemblance to the scientific ones either way. For example, what does fuel standards and oil taxes have to do with global warming and energy security? Nothing. Anyone familiar with economics can tell you if that was the concern they'd tax carbon emission and content for global warming and would encourage domestic drilling and coal and nuclear probably for the latter. Taxes could be set at levels calculated such that incentives would then line up for smaller cars for most while some can choose to pay the expense of larger ones, and power utilities would have financial incentives, and therefore responsibility to shareholders, to switch away from producing CO2. Instead the proposals implement class warfare mixed with the "solutions" for our "crisis"; of course there's going to be massive resistance, and fighting socialism has frankly been giving the moribund Republican party more life this year than it has had since 1994.

That, and they're a little pugnacious and spiteful, but the end result is the same.

I lost credibility because I think nuclear power is not a good alternative energy solution? First of all, its ridiculously expensive to build. Second, we still have no clue of what to do with the highly toxic radioactive waste nuclear energy produces (they currently store the waste on-site), nor what to do with the plant's remains once it has been decommissioned This in itself, in my opinion, should be reason enough not to use this type of power. Third, it takes something like 10 years to be completed from the time of conception. We need something sooner than that.

Thats what I came up off just off the top of my head. There are many other reasons. Look it up.

ANY new energy project will be ridiculously expensive and will take a LONG time, be it wind, solar, hydro, gas, coal, oil, or nuclear.

nuclear waste can actually be re-used in breeder reactors, but thanks to NIMBYism, none exist AFAIK in the US. Leftover waste is stored in sealed concrete(and lead, I think) containers, which are then shipped to mountains where they will sit. The US produces about 2000 metric tons of nuclear waste per year, compared to the 5.8 BILLION tons of CO2 in 2003 from conventional power plants. So you'd like to stick with coal, then?

wind? solar? please - both take up MASSIVE amounts of land to produce relatively LITTLE electricity, especially when compared to a nuclear plant. In addition, wind and solar do not have consistent power outputs, again, unlike nuclear. I don't know much about power engineering, but I'm pretty certain load balancing is easier with a constant output.

I have to agree with fenixgoon on the nuclear solution. Any other technology that could produce 'green' power cannot compete with nuclear power. Right now, we can produce nuclear power plants to help remove power reliance from coal and oil. Any other power tech that I have read about was still decades away from actually producing more energy. If they work out cold fission or fusion, then great. Build it and they will come. Right now though, we can build nuclear reactors that can provide energy now (relatively speaking). And lets not forget that some of that ten year build time is from the red tape from all the environmentalist and left wingers that want to 'help' the environment but refuse to use one of the best solutions that is available today.

You also mentioned cost of the power plant. Have you seen the studies on the cost per watt generated by the different types of power generating plants. I've seen many an article on it here and on other sites? Nuclear, at worse, is equal to coal while in other cases is said to be half that (or more) of coal. Secondly, this being the US where capitalism abounds, would our existing nuclear plants continue to produce energy if they were not turning a profit? The other things to consider are all the cons to these other sources of electricity which none of the enviro-nazis do. Solar? Well, lets just do a little deforestation for a solar power station. After all, plants don't grow very well with out sunlight, and solar is going to take a lot of land to fill power needs. Wind? Well, the wind doesn't blow all the time so be prepared for blackouts. Got lots of moving parts for the hundreds of windmills in our power farm .. means lots of maintenance. Oh, and lets not forget the possible impact on the local bird population (doh .. the last insert bird species here died today as it flew into a windmill).

Now, I'm from Mississippi where we have a nuclear power plant (so it is already in my backyard). I've even been there. They had tight security even before 9/11 and safety for the public and its employees seemed to be one of the number one goals of the plant. I would love for them to expand/update it to provide more power for the south.

So the short answer is, there is no single solution that can be implemented to move even a fraction of our power needs to the green side in under 10 years. With the introduction of electric only cars coming out in the next 5, power needs will only increase (greatly). The only way to do this is nuclear where we can at least contain the environmental contamination. Now, I'm all for the Zero co2 emission coal plants, we need those, too. As for solar? I would love to have them on my roof (which currently only serves make my house hotter during the Mississippi summers) and lessen my electrical draw from these 'polluting' energy sources - and hopefully save some money in the log run. The truth is, there is no real one answer, but to totally dismiss nuclear is a huge mistake. When done right, it is the cleanest, cheapest, most constant energy sources around.

Finally, to get back to the article, I think a lot of the 'we are going to drown the world' alarm-ism is just that. Another way to push someone's philosophy down our throats. I lived through the 80's were we were going to have to live on top of trash because no one was recycling. CAPTAIN PLANET WILL SAVE US!!!! Not that recycling was bad, but scaring the planet and pushing it just to get in office or gain popularity/funding? As someone said earlier, at least it did make us stop and think about what we were doing to the planet. However, extremism is just another word for nut job. It is the one thing that no one can argue with the Catholics about, it is all about moderation. I best stop here before they put a max number of characters on the body of the posts.

The other two covered it pretty well, but I'll also add that a lot of the reason it takes 10-15 years, and in some cases much, much longer to build a nuclear powerplant is because of heavy government regulation in the former case and NIMBY and traveling left-wing extremist activists which cause as much trouble as they can in a bid to kill the project in the latter case.

If the process were shorter, and extremists could be bulldozed, nuclear plants could be put up at a much quicker rate. The reactors already under construction in Texas, for example, will need 3 1/2 years or so for full approval, then be done by 2014 -- in other words, no more then 3.5 years from today if you ignored the regulatory burden. That's a pretty big gap from your supposed 10 years, and even with the approval time, 7 years isn't bad. Of course, new plants take longer to be approved; these are at an existing site that was already.. partly approved..

Also, the latest generation of plants bear no resemblance as far as I can tell to the older generation. They're simpler, more efficient, cheaper, and safer. "Look it up," as you like to say.

Even after ALL of those arguments, nuclear power still seems like a terrible solution. I have way too many things to react to, but here are a few that stuck out to me.

1. Breeder reactors have a HUGE cost that goes along with the reprocessing of them, which is why they are not currently being used.

2. Shipments of the waste to storage sites, especially if these were increased in large quantities, are subject to terrorist attacks who could then use the plutonium to make nuclear weapons.

3. You are not going to shorten the 10 year process it takes to get these things made. Not by much, at any rate. And whoever said it takes just as long to get a windfield or solar plant up and running needs to check their info.

4. Back to the nuclear waste. Doesn't anybody understand that we have no idea what to do with this highly, highly toxic stuff? Oh yeah, well who cares, lets just increase the rate at which it is produced and worry about it later. Isn't that what got us into this clean energy situation in the first place? How can we even consider this as an alternative?

I just don't understand how anybody who actually wants to get away from production of dirty energy could support this method. Its another quick fix because we don't know what the hell else to do. Instead of finding a good solution, we just want to hurry up and find one that removes the immediate pollutants in exchange for one that we don't have to worry about until later. Which, if you can't figure it out, will probably put us in an even worse situation then we are in now.

And Ringold, I do like to say "look it up" because I am not a friggen encyclopedia. I do not have all day to look these things up for people. I am too busy trying to get my degree so I can actually do something about this mess instead of sitting on a message board all day trying to impress people with my knowledge that I acquired surfing the internet.

> "Back to the nuclear waste. Doesn't anybody understand that we have no idea what to do with this highly, highly toxic stuff? "

Anyone with even a slight knowledge of the field realizes that we have not just one, but several solutions to nuclear waste disposal. It's literally a nonissue, a bugaboo created by those opposed to nuclear power.

2) you don't think shipments already contain large amounts of material? hell, you can find burial sites from the DOE and NRC. not to mention you'd have a hell of a time smuggling it out of the US for reprocessing purposes.fear mongering doesn't help anyone in any situation

3) it might take 10 years to build, but nuclear power plants produce much more than wind and solar.

4) waste storage is perfectly safe. burial sites are in the middle of nowhere for a reason - so radiation cannot affect anyone or anything.if you noticed, we produce 3,000,000 times less nuclear waste than CO2 (5.8billion tons CO2 vs 2000 tons, can find from DOE). unlike cars (~20% CO2 emissions), industry is the #1 producer of CO2, so if you REALLY want to reduce CO2, you reduce it in industry, not in vehicles.

nuclear power puts less nuclear material in the air than coal (howstuffworks.com). I'm sure you'll be happy to know that 50% of US produced energy comes from coal.

Wind and solar are just like ethanol - so much goes into producing them, yet we receive little return. Power density means a lot when you talk about energy produced/area.

I sound like a conspiracy theorist? Point out where I'm off base with the fringe elements of the left wing pushing these economically inane solutions, which serve more to expand federal power over the economy and engage in class warfare. The only sensical thing ever done was Europe's emissions trading scheme. They screwed that up by handing out credits like candy, but have taken steps to resolve that. If that was the only thing on the table, and it were global in nature, then I'd see no communist thrust coming through, just a response to a problem. As I'm sure you're aware, though, the war on the "planetary emergency" has gone far beyond just the emission trading scheme. Unlike Bush's supposed move for world domination, of which no evidence exists and no trend is clear, the start of global wealth redistribution in the name of global warming has already started! You can see some of it with the Maldives in masher's article, and also the UN coming hat-in-hand to the evil, vile, filthy "rich" countries looking for $40B from the US and as much from others.

I just pointed out how it all has come together up to this point. Sure, some of it is a little convoluted; some of the parts, such as the well intentioned conservationists, may be totally unaware of the role they play..but Greenpeace, on the other hand at least, is fully aware, and so are left-wing politicians who are thrilled to finally have a big issue filling their sails.

I have been stating this in my posts relating to the climate for years now, not only on DT but all over the web. When the information is looked at from an unbiased perspective, there is little to no change in ocean levels in recorded history. The only way we will be able to really shut these tree huggers up is get a global monitoring system that takes measurements of sea level, CO2 levels among other things that is also available to be looked at and used by individuals in the public. Once this is done we can record data for hundreds of years to see if there is any real change. Too many of these alarmists are using biased limited information and faulty methods to prove their point.

Thank the IPCC, and in the last decade eco-terrorists on the Left Coast, for painting a negative picture of the entire environmental conservation movement in the minds of many people, not him. He just repeated what generally holds true for the majority of the vocal environmentalists. We don't often ever hear from moderate ones.

This is because the moderate ones are busy doing something about it instead of pointing fingers.

As much as I hate to admit it, extremism has its positives. It brings attention to environmentalism, and while a lot of it may be negative, attention is attention. There are enough intelligent people in this world (though it is very difficult to believe sometimes) that they will take this negative attention and investigate it, and eventually the air will clear. Figuratively AND literally (hopefully). Although this method irritates the hell out of me on a daily basis, it may be the only way to get it done.

Saying "Well I don't like the extremists, but there are a lot of positives that come out of what they do" is a bit like saying, "Well I didn't like Hitler, but there were a lot of positives that came out of his rule over Germany".

I can think of some positives that came out of the experience of having Nazi Germany:

1 - It largely convinced the US to join the United Nations after it had failed to join the defunct League of Nations after WWI. Had the US been a part of such an organization at the end of WWI, the League of Nations would have had more power in enforcing the Treaty of Versailles.

2 - It caused the world to realize that making hurtful treaties like the Treaty of Versailles might not be such a good idea as extremists like Hitler can use them to rally support for an unjust cause.

3 - WWII was an early demonstration of the power of a relatively new medium: broadcast media's uses for propaganda on both sides of the war.

Certainly events like the Holocaust, the massive loss of life due to a second World War, and many other events of Hitler's power in Germany were tragic and negative. But to say that nothing positive was learned from those events is a gross misstatement of reality.

In 1, you're saying enforcing the Treaty would have been a good thing. In 2, you're saying the exact opposite. Which is it?

Your point is moot anyway, as the UN is exactly like the League of Nations in this respect. It will never enforce a treaty or ruling against a powerful nation. "Enforcement" requires the use of force, and thats something the UN never has the balls to do.

No, I'm not. I just used a poor example of a treaty (or other resolution) to enforce. Thank you for pointing out this item so I could clarify.

But you don't disagree that just because the situation is bad doesn't mean that we can't learn good lessons. So my point is not moot, since my point wasn't about the collective cojones of the UN, but rather that your analogy was poor.

Question, If these so called moderates and extremest are doing something about it, then pray tell me what!!!!!!

1. Have they given up their automobiles,2. Have they moved out of their houses and into a hut made of recyclable materials.3. Do they only eat food which was grown by their own hand.4. Have they shunned electricity.

Environmentalism are the biggest hypocrits on the planet. They complain about the misuse and polution but still continue to use the benefits of this society. No matter how much you believe they are doing. The only way they could truely not be hypocrites is to become Amish and give up all modern implements.

Get off your high horse, you are the same as everyone else using and consuming resources with little regard.

I don't think rehashing a 6 month old interview in a none scientific online publication where the scientist, and I use that term loosely, says in his first answer "there's nobody who has beaten me..I have launched most of the new theories in the 70, 80's and 90's" should be put up on Daily Tech as a "headline.

He's a crank, if the above does not show it then James Randi does here.

Randi is more than just a renowned expert in his particular field, he practically invented the field itself. I have several of his books myself. The relevant concept, here, is "within his particular field".

For an opinion on a supposed paranormal event, ask Randi. On the subject of sea level change, however-- ask a sea level expert. Knowledge in one field doesn't automatically translate over to others, no more than being a good actor or singer makes one an expert on global warming theory.

But don't you think that it is strange that such a prominent scientist (Mörner) claims to have dowsing capabilities, something which is decidedly incompatible with science? And going on tv to show it (and fail)?

The guy also is a vocal supporter of earth fields (or perhaps earth radiation, not sure about the correct translation from Swedish). You know, the feng shui kind of field/radiation that some people claim link Stonehenge to other ancient burial sites and the likes, and that can be only detected by... dowsing. Certainly not by any scientific means.

In 1996 he won the "Confuser of the year" award from the Swedish equivalent of the Skeptics society for his very vocal and very unscientific approach to this subject.

He is obviously only interested in the scientific method when it suits his agenda. My impression of this guy is that he is an attention junkie. What better way to get attention at the moment than to call the conspiracy card on global warming?

To me it doesn't matter what titles you have or the number of diplomas on your wall. You can still be a total whacko. What does matter, as a scientist, is if you believe in and abide by the scientific method. This guy most definitely doesn't.

I find a belief in dowsing to be fairly silly...but then many prominent scientists believe in things even more incompatible with science, such as the tenets of organized religion. That in itself doesn't discount their expertise in their own particular fields.

This review paper is pretty extensive--covers all different ocean level measurements and their shortcomings. Here's a snippet:

quote: The secular decrease of the Earth’s oblateness (as described by the J2 coefficient of the spherical harmonic expansion of the gravity field) observed by geodetic satellites during the past 25 years [Cox and Chao, 2002] is approximately -2.8x10^-11/yr (Figure 15).(3) The observed secular motion of the Earth’s rotation pole (true polar wander) is toward Canada [Dickman, 1979; McCarthy and Luzin, 1996].[65] These three observations have been generally explained by postglacial rebound [Johnston and Lambeck, 1999; Kaufmann and Lambeck, 2000; Peltier, 1998; Peltier and Jiang, 1996; Sabadini and Vermeersen, 2002; Vermeersen et al., 1997]. Indeed, viscous mantle material flowing from low latitudes toward high latitudes in response to the last deglaciation that started 18,000 years ago led to large-scale mass redistribution within the Earth system, hence causing a change of the Earth’s inertia tensor. Because the Earth is deformable, the rotation rate and rotation axis adjust themselves in order to conserve angular momentum. In the absence of other torques, changes in LOD are directly proportional to changes in the polar moment of inertia (C)

Movement in the mantle can change the inertial tensor; anyone with a basic knowledge in physics should understand how this can happen and lead to a change in LOD.

They also assert that tide gauge measurements aren't reliable, as Masher points out. Rather, it appears that satellite measurements, when carefully calibrated, are quite accurate.

Satellites calibrated to what standard though? The article points out that one of the accusations being made is that the IPCC changed all the old data by "calibrating" it with tide gauge data: and not just any tide gauge, but one that was in an area of known land level change.

How do you know satellite data is correct? If the earth deforms due to the mantel, than any readings based on its curvature would be correlated with that and not just sea level. You could ping electromagnetic waves through the ocean and off the crust, and then correlate the refraction index to give you depth; that would be a more appropriate measurement, but even then if the mantel changes the earth's shape, then sea level depth will be changed(!) irrespective of any actual change in the amount of free water in the oceans. Changing the shape of a container is another way to change how close the water is to its rim besides just adding/taking more water.

Therein, all measurement systems have their weaknesses. Nevertheless, rotational correlation and satellites are by far the most reliable; but no system will not be affected by earth shape changes. Every measurement system has its weaknesses, and that's why you need more than one.

I wonder if you even read the article or paid attention to its point: this isn't a discussion of current methods, but deliberate data change, and selectivity of using only what data sets actually agree with their hypothesis (which automatically breaks all the rules of scientific inquiry/method right there, and means nothing they say is valid) to the exclusion of other methods like rotational correlations. Now, I don't know if these accusations are true, but they are the biggest accusations that can ever be made in the scientific world. Their implications are huge and they must be investigated; whoever is wrong, be it the accuser of IPCC, will be in very hot water indeed.

quote: Satellites calibrated to what standard though? The article points out that one of the accusations being made is that the IPCC changed all the old data by "calibrating" it with tide gauge data: and not just any tide gauge, but one that was in an area of known land level change.

Michael(6%)Asher won't give you the information that counters his agenda. Here, he failed to mention that the calibration he mentions is no longer needed by the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason altimeter measurements and that the earth's rate of rotation changes with changes in the mantle:

From Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG3001 / 2004

quote: While in the past we have used the tide gauge calibration values as direct corrections to the altimeter data, recent improvements in the sea state bias correction [Chambers et al., 2003] now make this unnecessary, as the curve is relatively flat. In summary, the altimetric results are considered to be extremely robust, and the estimate of sea level rise of 2.8 ± 0.4 mm/yr over the last decade is very reliable within these error bars.

You bring up some good points with regards to satellite measurements, but from what I read in the above article, most of those issues are accounted for. I'm sorry that I can't give out the article for free...you'll have to go to the library or get access or pay for the article to get the whole thing. But it's a very extensive review of all the ocean level measuring techniques and it's a good read. And it soundly rejects what masher asserts here in this DT article.

quote: Now, I don't know if these accusations are true, but they are the biggest accusations that can ever be made in the scientific world. Their implications are huge and they must be investigated; whoever is wrong, be it the accuser of IPCC, will be in very hot water indeed.

For Masher's purpose, injecting the uncertainty of fraud into the debate is the goal, not actually debating the facts. If Masher wants to build an argument that the ocean levels aren't rising, he should put every freakin' graph up that shows it. He would have trouble doing so because there really is very little debate on this issue in the scientific community. He's spinning the facts to match his agenda.

We can call Michael Asher a scientific fraud too and leave it up to him to disprove it. Making accusations of fraud is easy, especially when you put the burden of proof on the defendant.

I do that because he insults (greatly) the scientists who have put decades of hard work into climate science by not accurately representing the facts. The scientists I know are hard working and getting paid very little for that work and are trained to be as objective as humanly possible along the way. If you are going to make a claim that, basically, decades of work from hundreds of scientists is false (or worse, claim fraud), you should at least have some hard facts to back it up. Masher usually doesn't and this article is no exception. It's just spin to feed an audience what it wants to hear. If Masher shows some genuine journalistic integrity, I'll back off from the assholey prefaces.

What's bogus is Masher's analysis. Notice that Masher makes no mention of the fact that:

A) sea level rise can be local due to local temperature changes of the water, which affects water density and hence ocean levels. So one location will experience more or less sea level rise. This is a known phenomenon.

B) satellite data is no longer "corrected" with tide gauges and those measurements are now much more accurate and show a change of approx 2.8mm/year +/-0.4mm.

C) changes in the earth's mantle can change the rate of rotation to a significant degree and explain the discrepancy between earth rotation measurements and ocean levels rising.

On another ntoe, changes in the earth's mantle also affect it's EMF, which deflects a lot of the sun's raidation and can cause temperature and climate variations in the Earth's atmosphere. In short the 'earth's mantle' issue cuts both ways.

Wrong. Masher did not quote the scientist verbatim, rather he summarized and stated this as if it were accepted fact with regards to how ocean levels are measured:

quote: Sea level changes can be detected by a number of methods. Rotational timing is a very precise method, and is based on the fact that a change in the earth's radius will cause minute differences in it's rate of rotation. A rise in sea level increases the radius slightly, and can therefore be detected by precisely timing when the sun rises and sets. This method can detect changes in sea level as small as one millimeter. Data collected in this manner has shown the ocean to have risen and fallen slightly several times since the early 1900s, without any definitive trend.

Why would any credible scientist want to spend their time debating politically-motivated spin? The data behind ocean level rise is pretty solid. Maybe you should focus on the areas of climate science that really are still in debate, like cloud formation for example.

Having just spent a semester in a sedimentology and stratigraphy class that dealt with oceans, basins, uplift, subsidence, relative sea level rise, etc., hearing that the IPCC has used a land-based gauge that is perhaps the least accurate (by far, apparently) is absolutely comical. There's no way they couldn't have known this. Rotation-timing is really the only method necessary to detect sea level rise.

"...hearing that the IPCC has used a land-based gauge that is perhaps the least accurate (by far, apparently) is absolutely comical. There's no way they couldn't have known this."

I don't think he was trying to say that they didn't know it was inaccurate. I think the point was that they KNEW it was inaccurate and favored global warming. So thats why they picked it because it supported their propaganda. Or I can be misunderstanding the article as well, but thats what I got from it. On a side note, I do believe that global warming and SLR are both politically fabricated, thats not to say I do not support cleaner burning fuels etc though.

Great article, Michael. I don't see any room for people to argue about this article. What really caught my attention, though, was that Dr. Khandekar countacted you. It seems your work is getting noticed. That's good for DT and good for you - keep up the great work!

I know for a fact that Global Warming is real. When I was a kid, winters were freezing cold. I had snow everywhere and when I walked to school or waited for the bus it was cold cold cold. Now that I'm older, winters are mild and I hardly ever wear a heavy coat. Err, I used to live in the Midwest and now I live in southern AZ, but that shouldn't matter given the type of 'Science' I see being done lately. By the way, I am a Physicist so the techniques I see being used scare the crap out of me.

quote: The IPCC's altimetry dataset, which had previously displayed no clear trend, suddenly changed, with past readings modified to show a strong uplift. Though corrections to datasets are supposed to be clearly announced and identified, this was done secretly, and not labeled. When Mörner inquired about the discrepancy, he was told the readings had been adjusted by a "correction factor".

Every day that money and valuable human resources are tithed away to the Church of Global Warming is a day that money and human resources could've been directed at investment and training human capital in Africa, the Mid East, Phillipines / Indochina area, and the rural areas of India and China. Meanwhile, millions of children die from diarrhea, people sit idle stuck in a cycle of poverty and young unemployed men are seduced in to radical terror groups. Nevermind the billion or so living on around a dollar a day or the billion or so that suffer chronic hunger -- sweet jesus, sea levels might rise a centimeter!

It is quite obvious that Global Warming is becoming a financial scam. The IPCC is just a shill for another food for oil type scam. The IPCC is making up evidence to for the sake of getting Western money for Global Warming.

Sorry if this is old, just joined. Question though. Everybody talks about rising sea levels due to ice. What about the fact that, as ice on land melts, the land itself rises. Also, as oceans rise, creating more presure on the ocean floor, won't the pressure force more water into the cracks between continents? Or, will the force of water cause more earthquakes and volcanoes which will form more land? How does one say what will happen, when it has never been observed. How does one say what will happen, when they have barely scratched the surfice of how the earth works. All speculation, learn more before you start throwing things out there, just my two scents.

quote: Mörner says that, in 2003 , The IPCC's altimetry dataset, which had previously displayed no clear trend , suddenly changed , with past readings modified to show a strong uplift. Though corrections to datasets are supposed to be clearly announced and identified, this was done secretly , and not labeled. .

Careful comparison of TOPEX/POSEIDON data with tide gauge data reveals a difference in the rate of change of local sea level of -2.3 ± 1.2 mm/yr (Mitchum, 1998) or -2 ± 1.5 mm/yr (Cazenave et al., 1999). This discrepancy is caused by a combination of instrumental drift, especially in the TOPEX Microwave Radiometer (TMR) (Haines and Bar-Sever, 1998), and vertical land motions which have not been allowed for in the tide gauge data. The most recent estimates of global average sea level rise from the six years of TOPEX/POSEIDON data ( using corrections from tide gauge comparisons ) are 2.1 ± 1.2 mm/yr (Nerem et al., 1997), 1.4 ± 0.2 mm/yr (Cazenave et al., 1998; Figure 11.8), 3.1 ± 1.3 mm/yr (Nerem, 1999) and 2.5 ± 1.3 mm/yr (Nerem, 1999), of which the last assumes that all instrumental drift can be attributed to the TMR. IPCC 200 1 (note that the latest IPCC report, post 2003, provides similar numbers for the trend, which supposedly was 'tuned' in 2003).

Outside of the IPCC report, for eg.: The 3.2 ± 0.2 millimeter per year global mean sea level rise observed by the Topex/Poseidon satellite over 1993-98 is fully explained by thermal expansion of the oceans. For the period 1955-96, sea level rise derived from tide gauge data agrees well with thermal expansion computed at the same locations. However, we find that subsampling the thermosteric sea level at usual tide gauge positions leads to a thermosteric sea level rise twice as large as the "true" global mean. As a possible consequence, the 20th century sea level rise estimated from tide gauge records may have been overestimated . Cabanes et al., Science 200 1

Apparently a trend appeared in the data since at least 2001 (even before if one account for short term records, subject to significant uncertainty clearly specified by the authors of these early studies), this guy must have been hibernating for at least 2 years to see the clear trend 'suddenly pop-up' in the 2003 'IPCC data set' (and yeah sure, nowhere else than in the 'IPCC cult' anybody has seen an upwards trend ...). Issues with gauges were also pretty much known ... so much for an 'expert'... LOL

A few other earlier references (certainly too early for my taste as Topex/P was still young, but it's just to address the 'had previously displayed no clear trend') show also significant trends (but obviously the authors caution against 'global warming' interpretation).

As for hidden adjustments with gauges and resulting pseudo-'artificial' trends, they seem to appear since 1997, but the 'expert' may have been deprived of his library card during this period to miss this kind of shameful tricks:

quote: Comparisons to tide gauge sea levels measured in spatial and temporal proximity to the satellite measurements suggest there is a residual drift in the satellite measurement system of -2.3 +/- 1.2 mm/year, the origin of which is presently unknown. Application of this rate correction yields a ³calibrated² estimate of +2.1 +/- 1.3 mm/year for the rate of sea level rise, which agrees statistically with tide gauge observations of sea level change over the last 50 years. Nerem et al., GRL 1997

The "Global Climate Change Crisis" is just the latest "infalted group think I drank the kool aid" disaster intended to dovetail nicely with socialists worldview that modern capitalistic societies are the real scourge of the earth......polluting, dominating helpless pure indiginous peoples of color, raping earth and society for the exorbitant profits of just a handful of evil greedy BUSINESS men who take the World further and further from the natural track of evolution which is all people from all different religious, cultural, ethnic, geographic, and historical backgrounds singing Koombaya together passing around an apple and each taking only a tiny nibble so thata)everyone gets a nibble b)None feels better or worse than anyone else c) We only need a few acres of land to "decimate" by planting apple trees d)We can get off our nasty meaningless "addiction" to fossil fuels (oohhhhh, the very words make my conscience shudder with guilt)because we can all live in teepees under the apple trees, so we won't need pollutant spouting trucks to drive to the store or eveil backhoes to help build new stores, or new homes for that matter (the teepees will suffice).

Of course the end game is more and more of the worlds resources in the hands of huge beaurocratic debate clubs and less and less in the hands of private folks and businesses. Because with all good socialists they know best. They know best what to spend money on. And if a limited government is good then a slightly larger one is an slight improvement, and a bigger one is a bigger improvement, and a huge one is a huge victory for mankind everywhere.

We can all see how well large government has done throughout history. And America's meteoric rise was built and presupposed on huge government....right? Thats what Barrack said anyway......so it must be true.

Do some real research on Climate change....take the contrarian view just because any good theory should hold up to vociferous attack...... and you will find that the global climate as evidenced my the latest ice core drilling from 1.5 miles beneath the earth's surface show just how stupid and baseless this "undeniable science" of Climate change is.

A fact that you should understand is that the more control of our lives the government has the lower the quality of life becomes. Society has managed to improve in some ways in spit eof growing government....not because of it (Correlation versus caustaion). I don't know of many graet beaurocratic discoveries that have made my life more pleasurable. But there are millions from private interests (so many that we take them for granted) that were motivatde by the profit motive and their own SELF-INTEREST.

We are all beings invested inexorably in our own self interest whether we acknowledge it or not. Allowing that pure, natural, and powerful motivation to make the lives of eberyone gradually better by providing jobs, safety, entertainment, culture, etc. is the best thing a government can do. Be the matador and get the hell out of the way you goofy f-ck you!

We are headed for full blown world socialism, and if you want some milk toast church mouse in Norway deciding how many years in re-education camp you will receive for running you barbecue too often (it causes too much pollution), then continue to quietly let the UN and the "World" bodies, committees, etc. have greater and greater sway over OUR lives here in America.

This country has been a beacon of hope and prosperity for generations of foreigners....and for good reason. And if you are scratching your head wondering....."what reason would that be? We are a pretty greedy, myopic, violent, world dominating power."...then you are beyond help. You have already been re-educated and been made to realize what a scourge white man has been on this Earth.

Sea levels will rise and fall, but the fight bewteen good and evil, between freedom and government direction on what to do and how to do it, will never cease.

I don't want to be dependent on anyone else....INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT for anything except protection, law and order, and a few select services that are best provided by teh public sphere.

"In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal “Communications Action Plan” that stated: “Victory will be achieved when … average citizens ‘understand’ uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry’s communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy."

I thank Asher for providing details to this matter, in a further effort to prove to that this whole Global Warming & Energy Crisis is a politically fabricated topic.

So the surface has warmed like .4 degrees in 50-100yrs, in which the previous methods of gathering data may not even be correct using standard deviation. And if the earth has been here for millions of years, we have no clue what the trends were like back then either.

I vote that these are politically created agendas, backed by groups like Greenpeace, the U.N., PETA, and people like Al Gore. In my mind, the overall goal is to decrease the economic power of the US, China, and India, while instituting a more "Globally Socialist State", to try and bring the economies of more nations on par w/ the US. Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

I don't have to be out of control to argue something. Some people do have the ability to disagree constructively ya know. People are always going to believe what they want to believe regardless. Look at global warming and astronomy. How can anyone have the gall to say that we know anything about stars, planets, and space other than they exist? And global warming is stupid. No one knows for sure. It's a "maybe" in my book.

Dude... you'll soon learn that anybody saying anything remotely unliked on this website will be smashed into 1,000 pieces. I suggest that if you don't like it, you don't read these articles. I accidentally clicked on this one by mistake ;)

Sixty years after Adolph Hitler's demise it's sad to see the same bigoted religious intolerance so openly displayed. You want someone else to keep quiet about their religious/scientific opinions, and maybe wear a gold star and stay in the ghetto. Reminds me of the University where Einstein taught in Germany. A group formed calling themselves 100 scientists against Einstein, due to his relativity theory and Jewish heritage.

quote: The OPs meaning was both clear and accurate. In some usages, "science" means the human search for knowledge. In others, it means that knowledge itself, independent of our search for it.

That's not what the OP said at all. He said:

quote: Depends if you consider "science" to be the way the universe works, or the understanding of the way the universe works.

That's quite a bit different from you are claiming he said. It's only a few post back. You ought to read it. :)

quote: Lol, so even when the dictionary itself proves you wrong, you still want to argue the point? Please don't be a buffoon.

I agree completely with every definition of science on dictionary.com. If you were actually reading the posts you are responding to, you would have seen that the #2 I referenced was my own paraphrase of the OP's definition. You won't find anything like that in the real dictionary.

quote: In some usages, "science" means the human search for knowledge. In others, it means that knowledge itself, independent of our search for it.

Both of those are accurate definitions of "science." Both are used commonly. Neither of those definitions would support it's usage a sentence such as "Science created man," now would it?

That's EXACTLY what the OP said. I'm prepared to cut you some slack because English obviously isn't your native language, but the meaning of his words is clear, and it fits the dictionary definition to a T. Stop making yourself appear foolish with this redundant argument.

quote: Neither of those definitions would support it's usage a sentence such as "Science created man," now would it?

Of course it would. If "science" is defined as "the way the universe works" (the OP's exact words) then that means science, ala physics/biochemistry/evolution/etc (e.g. "particular bodies of knowledge", the dictionary definition) created mankind.

First of all, a body of knowledge did not create anything more than an understanding in the minds of men. You should be astute enough to see his point. Secondly, science is predated by natural philosophy and for many hundreds of years men did not find learning about the way the world works to be in conflict with belief in the numinous. Science's goal is to describe the natural laws, properties, and workings of the universe.

Science is falsifiable, unlike religion whose worldview presupposes the existence of the supernatural. Hence the term faith. There are many faithful scientists, for those closed-minded people who think the world is black and white.

Religious belief is not based on accumulations of evidence. Sure some people believe in miracles--I am not even speaking to that.

Religious belief is simply not comparable to scientific inquiry. The former asks why, the latter asks how. Note I am not saying one is better than other, but they are certainly different and I think they have different roles in our culture.

Ask a scientist who studies the big bang what happened during the first few microseconds and he would tell you the most basic physical laws were not the same as they are now. Ask this scientist what happened before the big bang, and they'd likely tell you that you have no left the realm of science and entered the spiritual.

Cygni -I cant tell if this is a bad attempt at trolling, a bad joke, or a dumb person in general. Someone please send help.Ironic that this quote applies to the comment both above and directly benetah it.

It's not a matter of saying the earth is billions of years old means you will go to hell. That is stupid. But I believe every single written word in the bible. If you believe in god, then you have to believe in his word. Read the book of genesis from the king James version. It gives you a sequence of 7 days. As in 7, 24 hour periods of time. Not billions. Please forgive me all mighty scientific community of Daily tech for being a Christian.

So your a believer in Sumerian stories? I ask becuase Genesis was largly written by the Sumerians, and exists on clay tablets all over Sumeria which existed loooong before the time of Moses. In fact, it existed longer than 6000 years ago.

BTW, I'm a Christian myself, I just find it troubling that so many take Genesis, Revelations and Daniel so literally without even knowing the history or context of those books.

WOW. You believe the whole Sumerian thing because a scientist told you that some tablets (could even be fake) are over 6,000 years old? You clearly will never see the logic behind that. I believe what the bible says. End of story.

Much like Christians bought the idea that Christ was God in the flesh. If I go to the Old Testament I find God Says I am the one and only and speaks of himself without hiding the idea he is God. When it comes to the new testament and Jesus he never says "I God" he always asks for gods help in performing a miracle. God never seemed to be afraid to say he was God and Jesus never had the courage to say he was. Why would he need god's help if Jesus was God in the flesh? Was God Stupid that he needed to rewrite the bible with a new testament? Or have you been duped in what god stated "beware false profits" and "Though shall worship no one before me" and worship Jesus before god now because you believe its the only way to get into heaven? God warned you about this.

Tell me where in the bible Christ says he is god because as far as I know only John claims he is god.

Jesus Died. So did part of God die? Can God Die?

I stopped going to Christian churches when I realized they were nothing more than 45 minute pep rallies that make you feel guilty then bring you up at the end. Thank you for your Money. Ignore the $9,000 projectors found in churches today because the church isn't about your money or is it?

Uh, because he was in the flesh - the theology goes that he suspended his divinity and became man.

> Or have you been duped in what god stated "beware false profits"

No, that didn't dupe me, but it did dupe Enron stockholders.

> "Though shall worship no one before me"

Trinity.

> worship Jesus before god now because you believe its the only way to get into heaven?

That's what he said, so if you believe him and the story, that's what you do.

> Jesus Died. So did part of God die? Can God Die?

According to theology, he also rose from the dead and then was wholly assumed into heaven, and then there's your misunderstanding of the Trinity.

> Tell me where in the bible Christ says he is god because as far as I know only John claims he is god.

Pretty sure it's there in James, but alas, I don't bring a Bible to work.

> I stopped going to Christian churches when I realized they were nothing more than 45 minute pep rallies that make you feel guilty then bring you up at the end. Thank you for your Money. Ignore the $9,000 projectors found in churches today because the church isn't about your money or is it?

Mine's not, but w/e. I'm glad you have an opinion, Mitch, but it might be time to brush the chip off your shoulder.

quote: Tell me where in the bible Christ says he is god because as far as I know only John claims he is god.

Pretty sure doesn't work. You can look but Jesus never said he was God. Strange because God would have nothing to fear as God walking on the earth even in mans form.

In the Old testament we see God never feared saying he was God. Why did Jesus fear saying I am God? Because it would have gotten him killed? I guess God can be killed by Man if that's true. Jesus Visits earth in all his mighty and is afraid to say I am GOD! God does not have this fear.

Christianity places Jesus before God as a way to get into heaven. Christians have broken "Thou shall worship no one before me". Thats a pretty big rule to break are you sure you want to go against God's word?

I suggest not just taking what the church tells you is right and look into what the text actually says. Christians should stop protesting movies and video games and try cleaning up some of those TV evangelists who preach Jesus for their own personal wealth instead.

> In the Old testament we see God never feared saying he was God. Why did Jesus fear saying I am God? Because it would have gotten him killed? I guess God can be killed by Man if that's true. Jesus Visits earth in all his mighty and is afraid to say I am GOD! God does not have this fear.

I'm going to stay away from psychologizing God.

> Christianity places Jesus before God as a way to get into heaven. Christians have broken "Thou shall worship no one before me". Thats a pretty big rule to break are you sure you want to go against God's word?

Like I said, the Trinity. Aquinas goes into more detail if you're interested.

> I suggest not just taking what the church tells you is right and look into what the text actually says. Christians should stop protesting movies and video games and try cleaning up some of those TV evangelists who preach Jesus for their own personal wealth instead.

Were it so easy. Unfortunately, I can't beat those guys down because I'd end up in jail, or worse - and hey, Ive got a family to look after. So, that leaves non-violent methods, which are less certain and more time-consuming.

Most of those goons get money from folks who aren't going to be changing their minds. The other problem is that most televangelists would feed their constituency from my attempts to defrock them, as they regularly denounce Catholics like me as very bad people. So, there's not too much I can think of to do about it. I know they're goons, and I wish they weren't such a visible disgrace to Christianity, but what can you do?

I believe in the afterlife thanks to Albert Einstein and his theories on energy and a personal experience with my grand fathers passing.

The difference is I believe we pay for our sins. It would be nice if Jesus did die for them but what keeps me more in line with the 10 commandments is that I expect to pay for breaking any of those rules where others might be more inclined to break them and use Jesus as a reason to say ok I sinned but Jesus forgives me. Why have 10 commandments if there is an escape clause? I have an eternity to make things right with God in the afterlife for the sins I have done. I also believe someone like me is more inclined to follow the 10 commandments more closely because there are penalties should I break them where others have a get out of jail free card. I know it doesn't work that way but thats the way I see things.

I have spent years trying to come to terms with Christianity only to move further and further away from it the more I learned. This was not an overnight or quick decision. It took a long time for me to realize that Christianity doesn't work for me.

I also have issues with religions that specify they are the one and only true religion that gets into heaven. I don't believe god is so cruel to forsake many who did right but chose the wrong religion. At the same time I know he is not a pushover and rules with a strong hand. The rules are simple. 10 Rules and few warnings on things to look out for.

In the end it may make no difference because God knows who you are. I don't think anyone can BS him.

quote: Pretty sure doesn't work. You can look but Jesus never said he was God. Strange because God would have nothing to fear as God walking on the earth even in mans form.

If you are sincere enough to have real questions read "The Case for Faith" and/or "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was a strong skeptic and put his legal journalism job to work to disprove Christ. Very good read.

quote: Christianity places Jesus before God as a way to get into heaven. Christians have broken "Thou shall worship no one before me". Thats a pretty big rule to break are you sure you want to go against God's word?

Jesus = God. There is no way to place one before the other.

As far as going against rules... We all go against the standard that God has set. It's an unachievable standard designed specifically to show us that we're not capable of being "good" on our own. God is absolutely intolerant of sin, but being a God of love he chose to cover the cost to bail us out. The cost is death and Jesus came to die so that we'd be free of that cost. Now here we are, no longer required to pay that price as long as we buy into Jesus. Free gift through door #1. Take it or leave it. If we leave it, we're choosing to pay the price ourselves.

quote: I suggest not just taking what the church tells you is right and look into what the text actually says. Christians should stop protesting movies and video games and try cleaning up some of those TV evangelists who preach Jesus for their own personal wealth instead.

You act as if imperfect people are not allowed to voice their opinions. Can you REALLY mean that? If so, then I would prepare for a lifetime of silence if I were you because that applies to every human. Just like you would protest something you are against, Christians protest things they are against. How can it be OK for you and not for Christians? Are they not people with equal rights?

Christians are not perfect or even "good". Everytime someone throws that in my face it makes me fairly angry. Who up and made me perfect? When did I lose the basic inclination to lie, steal, and cheat? I personally am very sorry for the times I have made God look bad, but I and God both know who I am. I'm a sinful man and I've got issues. It's extremely unreasonable and it defies common sense to expect people to change instantly as soon as they "get religion". It took me years to end up this way and it will take years to undo.

Don't be so hard on people, we're all human. If you plan to rant fairly against all injustice you will lose your voice and die well before you make the smallest dent.

Um, well, since any of us can go see them in museums, since there are hundreds of copies spread over thousands of square miles, and because it would have taken a global conspiracy requiring multiple sciences, countries, religious backgrounds and ideas, I'd say its fairly reasonable to assume that the artifacts are real.

When the only rebuttal one can come up with requires the entire world to be lying, I think its pretty fair to take the evidence at its face value. You do know that the Hebrew people are only about 4000-5000 years old, so obviously there are existing cultures that predate them(and in fact many are spoken of in the OT), which means that the stories they codified into the Bible had to have originated elsewhere for the earliest book...

Nice - and in 2000 years Scientology will be a 2000 year old religion also. In 2000 years can we say that the stories of Xenoo didnt happen? Maybe Tom Cruise will be portrayed as the next Jesus? The New New Testament?

How can you measure 7 days when the earth wasn't even created. By now, you must have figured out that 1 day is measured by the earth's rotation. So the universe must still rotate about the earth too, huh?

And who was there to witness the creation in 7 days. AFAIK, there is no passage in the old testimat where God specifically told someone he created everything in 7 days. So, where did this knowledge come from?

The King James version has been updated from older texts and some of the translations and meanings no longer have relevance. You can't get a story passed along a single generation without it being molested, much less 100's of generations before it was ever written for the first time.

My parents are also Christians. But they don't believe that the Bible is meant to be taken literally word for word. It's a book that teaches how to live a full life as a good person. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you rest your entire faith on whether the creation story is literal or allegorical, you're focusing on the wrong message that the Bible is meant to relay. I think if more believers stopped stressing the literal interpretation to attack science and more atheist scientists stopped using science to attack God, the world would be a much better place.

As a Christian myself, I see no reason why there can't be moderation. I surely wasn't physically present at the Creation event, whether it was a Big Bang 900 gazillion years ago and I wasn't there 6,000-10,000 years ago to witness its formation from nothingness. Reputable scientists on both sides have strong evidence to support their claims as well as some holes in their respective theories. Are we so arrogant that we think we can fathom the universe or God?

Then you must not believe in Evolution,....right? Say you don't, and get blasted by this entire site. I'm not saying all science is bad. I just think we carry it WAY to far sometimes. Claims that lead to the bible looking like a fictional novel is what I'm talking about. And saying billions of years is certainly what I think meets this criteria. I am not in the least hostile about anything. Have a called anyone names? No I haven't. Don't twist my comments to something negative when all I am doing is looking from the other angle. I don't feel stupid for my beliefs. Even though you get lynched for your opinion on this site. It takes faith to preach when all others around you belittle everything you say. Think about that for a while.

Randall, for starters, I wasn't twisting your comments or trying to make you feel stupid. In fact, I wasn't even responding to you or about you directly. I wasn't saying science was bad. Reread what I wrote. You don't need to be defensive.

Second, I have not been persuaded by any evolution theories, no. Everything in nature and the Bible supports an entropic trend that appears to fly in the face of evolution. Am I interested in knowing? Yes. Will I ever know for sure? No. Does it really matter? No. I'm satisfied in knowing that there is a supernatural force behind everything and that He is worthy of unyielding glory. I can only look at the world around me as it has been presented with the wisdom I have been given. I'll direct further questions about my views on this topic to Job, chapter 38 and beyond.

Now that you've turned the conversation onto yourself, I don't question your faithfulness at all, but perhaps your motives. What exactly are you preaching? To me it seems that you are wasting breath (er... finger strength) on an endless "man vs man" debate rather than focusing on the REASON the Word was given: to preach salvation from God. The "good news" isn't that the universe was created in six days, but that the God who could manage such a feat would want to be our savior and champion.

You only get lynched on this site if you get hostile or if you complain about being lynched when no such lynching is occurring. The majority of people on DT are level-headed enough to listen to any opinion, viewpoint, or theory, provided you can give it without being a total spaz. Again, I'm not referring to you directly.

quote: Are we so arrogant that we think we can fathom the universe or God?

As humankind I can definitively say YES we ARE so arrogant ! Just look around and see the comments and the new stories. People everywhere are messed up (myself included). This is mankind's inheritance. The arrogance is that we think that we have the answers when we know almost nothing in the grand scheme of things.

This is why people bash others for what amounts to trivial disagreements. Instead of admitting that we don't know for sure, we just say that our opinion is the right one (arrogance) and we tell others that they're idiots.

And that brings me to my final point sir. Thank you for that. Once you see the evidence and change your mind, it will already be too late. The best thing I can offer for science guru's is by telling them to watch Kent Hovind's original series about evolution. There is a lot of good science in there. They are all copyright free so if you cant find them let me know if interested. Wont hurt you to just take a look. Before you say it, i know there is a lot of bad press against him, so don't comment until you see the videos.

quote: That said, if some entity winked the universe into existence at the Singularity, what's to say that same entity couldn't have done so 6,000 years ago. Or 6 minutes ago for that matter.

You're being serious? Seems to me that generally speaking those who want to believe there are no clear cut answers simply aren't paying attention.We know about the age of things from dating radioactive isotopes. Their half lives are a known quantity. They can be verified. You can conduct an experiment yourself and get your own data.Those that talk about "7 days" probably don't even know that the rotational period of the earth was not always 24 hours... It's directly influenced by the orbital mechanics of the earth-moon system... as the moon moves further away, our rotation slows down, the day gets longer. sometime in the past the moon was closer, and even further in the past there was no moon...The beauty of science is that findings can be verified, and predictions made. We know there could not have been a global flood 6000 years ago because it would have left conclusive evidence. We also know there was a time when there were no oceans on this planet... again, evidence.We have so called metamorphic rocks that can only be created by geological events that take place a long time. Similarly we can observe solar systems forming around other stars, and know with 100% certainty that a planet can not be created before it's parent star.A lot of religious beliefs are based on ignorance of basic science. Like the people in my subway system shouting that there's no way humans could have evolved from monkeys, when in reality they have no clue that it's not even what Darvin said!

I'm sure I'm just wasting my breath though... if people can't accept facts, arguing with them is hopeless.

Kris is citing a common example (quite eloquently actually) used in existentialism. He's saying that there are really only two cases in the universe: there is a God and he made the universe, or there isn't (and science will eventually explain its origin). The logic here being if God can make the universe, it doesn't really matter where the singularity starts since he's God, and he can do anything.

I guess its more of an observation than anything, but a good one since it agrees with everyone's point of view.

Some of you are making good points. This one is really something to think about.

If there is a God, then there is heaven and hell. I don't want myself or anyone to go to hell. That means we need to follow the rules of God.

On the other hand, if there is no God then we don't need to worry about any of this. That would mean good and evil doesn't exist, and when we die, we don't go to heaven or hell. We just die(or whatever you may believe).

I believe in God. I believe there is a heaven and hell. And I also believe there is good and evil. You decide on what is best for you, but if you follow god, then you have nothing to lose either way(wether he is or isn't). But if you don't follow God, and hell does exist, then you will feel pretty foolish for believing in nothing. Believing that something doesn't exists does not make it non existent.

Follow God - Nothing to loseBelieve in nothing - ...well do the math

If there is no God, then without a doubt there is no hope for anything.

quote: Which God? There are thousands of religions that all contradict each other.

Not going to waste my time arguing against other religions. I believe what I believe, and everyone else can do the same.

If there is no higher power, then who decideds whats right and wrong? Senators? you?

quote: You can't decide. One cannot choose whether or not they believe, only what they say they believe. You can talk yourself into a lot of things, sure, but deep down belief is not a choice.

Some people change their life completly after changing their mind and heart about something. If you dont believe that then we have nothing further to discuss.

The key word would be "this" life. Forever = after life is done on this earth. Forever is a long time sir. If i had a choice between forever in paradise, and forever in pain, I would certainly choose the first.

Do I really need to point out that this doesn't follow? Many religions have postulated a god or gods without both heaven or hell. A few have not even included any form of afterlife at all. In fact, even in the Judaic faith, the concept of hell is a relatively late addition.

It is your ideology that is blinding. Being pagan or non-Christian is not a neutral position. Every faith has its own assumptions.

Fact: western civilization is based on a Christian world view and all of the material benefits derived through scientific discoveries were done primarily by Christian men. To understand why this is, one must go into the tenants of the faith and evaluate the value system and realize how it fosters great scientists.

Um, if centuries ago the Catholic church had it's way scientific progress would have been delayed even further then it already was. Or have you forgotten that scientists who opposed the Church's view that the earth was at the center of the universe were either burned, or put under house arrest (as was Galileo).Sorry but the church has done much to slow, or even destroy scientific progress.You can argue that in this day and age they aren't mutually exclusive if you want, but to imply that it actually creates better scientists is mindboggling.And the world view that you mention has much to do with politics and little to do with science.

Spend a few minutes reading about Galileo and you'll see that they did that because he ridiculed the Pope and the Church. The actions were not because of his scientific discoveries, although they arose from the controversy as well.

I'm not saying it was the right move. It was most certainly not. I'm just saying that it's not as simple as saying "The Church is anti-science; Look what they did to Galileo."

Regardless, today in the Catholic Church the common and accepted view of our origins is that we evolved along with all of the other creatures of the Earth. The common and accepted view of the age of the universe is that it is many billions of years old. The view of Genesis is that it was adapted from much older Sumerian texts.

Those points are all addressed right in the Catechism, the compilation of all the essential Church doctrine. Many of the things that non-Christians like to point about the faith simply aren't an issue for the vast majority of Christians.

quote: Those that talk about "7 days" probably don't even know that the rotational period of the earth was not always 24 hours...

Good thing the Hebrews measure days as sundown to sundown, and not by modern-day hours, so whether the Earth was rotating in 8 seconds per revolution or a million years per revolution, it still only took seven "days". They also have distinct methods of measuring years, months, and weeks. If you're going to attack or defend the Bible, make sure you have a handle on the context in which it was written.

quote: We know about the age of things from dating radioactive isotopes.

There are numerous assumptions to all radioisotope dating methods and a lot of evidence that shows that all the methods have flaws. Research on creationontheweb.org for detailed analysis of dating methods.

quote: A global flood 6000 years ago ... would have left conclusive evidence.

Like billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.

Six-day young earth creationists have a good understanding of how science supports their positions. They also perceive that a big-bang followed by chemicals spontaneously forming self-replicating, self-sustaining organisms is a philosphy, not science.

The people writing the bible had no clue what the world outside their neighborhood looked like. They had no idea what was happening in the Americas, Japan etc because they weren't even aware of these places. (Which already doesn't bode well for them).If there really was a "worldwide" flood, it would be noted in the stories of the native people of the above nations. Yet they say nothing of the sort... So there could not have been a worldwide flood, could there!